Well, I wouldn’t want to be unsympathetic to your experiences with unsympathetic Bible quoting, OA. And I would agree that stopping any sin is going to be a costly and painful experience. Giving up greed is a killer, I can tell you.
I don’t know whether the existence of Fred Phelps and other crazies should be taken as a reason for not continuing to insist on a biblical view though. The abuse of something (in this case, biblical teaching) should not stop its correct use. Any more than craziness in the other direction (insisting that we actively support the ordination of practising homosexuals, for example) should stop us from being compassionate to those who struggle.
If you are going to put in place programs to help those who are struggling with unwanted homosexual feeling, then surely for consistency’s sake you also need to put in place programs to help those who are struggling with unwanted other sins (eg greed).
I don’t see much evidence around me that the church is too concerned about the latter....
Whilst I will ask for some evidence for this suggestion, I think you may be right.
Gossip, for example, is still rife in many churches. WHen we lived in Medlow Bath and attended St.Aiden’s in Blackheath, my mother who lives in Blackheath but doesn’t go to church knew stuff about my fellow congregants I did not - from ladies in the church who were in things like Red Cross and the Rhododendhron Society.
The problem is that issues like homosexuality are of such a high profile that any opposition attracts attention, whereas issues such as adultery (or gossip), don’t.
As an aside, I’m not looking forward to the day a Christian School (like ours) gets sued by someone for not being employed becuase of their sexual preference.. or being sacked for it.
Sure, but part of the issue with homosexuality receiving more attention at the moment is that it is actively being promoted within secular society as not sinful, and a genuine lifestyle option. I don’t see anyone in public or private life insisting that we should stop condemning gossip, or suggesting the idea of holding a ‘Gossip Mardi Gras’ where out and proud gossipers can get on with their gossiping without fear of censure.
Perhaps in a generation the issues will have shifted again and the publicly acceptable (but extreme) sin of the day will be something different, in which case you would expect that Christians would have an opinion to offer just like everyone else.
Gordon - the inclusion of greed (as well as sexual immorality) in 1 Cor 6 is precisely my point. I agree that we get plenty of preaching on both subjects in anglican churches in Sydney, but proposing a further support etc program for one, but not the other, certainly smells of inconsistency to me.
Also, you seem to be suggesting that the focus of media attention on homosexuality means that we are justified in focusing on it ourselves. However, to me at least, such an approach merely amounts to no more than “conforming ourselves to the pattern of this world” (ie to playing the world’s games) rather than allowing all areas of our lives and witness (including the more private ones) to be transformed according to Christ’s standards.
As is your wont a thoughtful post with material in it relating to homosexuals of your acquaintance that I am not competent to comment on.
However I have one of two comments
When thinking/talking biblically why can’t we approach the issue of homosexuality from a NT perspective, so that not only Roms 1 and 1 Cor 6 are in view but also in our approach to homosexuals John 8 as well? It is totally unhelpful detouring through Leviticus, traipsing as it were in the wake of our opponents.
No doubt you are right that once trapped into homosexuality, it is extraordinarily difficult to leave homosexuality.
I think the whole gene for homosexuality thing is unhelpful even though I have previously indicated that I do believe people can be born with a predilection for homosexuality. Many, many end up in homosexuality either because of upbringing or because of the out-workings of the sexual revolution of the 1960’s (which I lived through) including the influence of others and the consequent result of making a choice. I simply don’t believe there were, say 40 years ago, anything like the numbers of today involved in homosexual activity. Furthermore people are switching, the so called bisexual, which rather proves the point.
The other point about homosexuality is that it is a harmful lifestyle and a parasitic one when you consider that it is barren in terms of bringing children into the world.
The fact that the Bible describes homosexuality as “unnatural” and “detestable”, subject to God’s judgment must count for something.
None of this should mean that we can be excused civility toward homosexuality. Common grace extends to homosexuals. A mature Christian friend, until recently a member of English National Opera, tells of her many homosexual friends and how lovely a number are.
When it comes to the church and the welcoming of homosexuals care is required. If it is so difficult for homosexuals to change then beware. The Church is a place for sinners who recognise their sin and are looking for deliverance, forgiveness and a fresh life in community with others of a like mind.
Also, you seem to be suggesting that the focus of media attention on homosexuality means that we are justified in focusing on it ourselves. However, to me at least, such an approach merely amounts to no more than “conforming ourselves to the pattern of this world” (ie to playing the world’s games) rather than allowing all areas of our lives and witness (including the more private ones) to be transformed according to Christ’s standards.
How so? Why couldn’t it be part of the approach of apologetics that all Christians have at least some obligation to be involved in? If one of the major current points at which Christians are being attacked is on the question of sexual ethics, then we have an obligation to defend our stance gently but firmly.
Also, I can’t really see how me privately struggling with the sin of greed (or even preaching a series on it in church) would prevent me from also making a legitimate public contribution to a discussion on homosexuality; especially when I’m being told by supporters of homosexuality (such as Justice Michael Kirby, via the pages of the SMH) that it’s an area I must not speak about.
In that instance, isn’t not speaking doing precisely what the world would like us to do?
BTW, I don’t really agree that the church is always talking about homosexuality. I can’t remember hearing a sermon on the subject for at least a decade*, whereas greed and generosity are spoken about very often. If the argument is to be one of consistency (and I did suggest some reasons why this might not be the best approach), then we ought to have sermons on homosexuality twice a year, and the occasional four-week series as well, and probably a Katoomba Convention once every few years. I don’t necessarily say that is a good idea, but it would represent a more consistent approach, if consistency is what you are arguing for.
*In Melbourne. Even then it wasn’t a sermon as such, so much as an afternoon seminar where different broadly evangelical views were put.
...or suggesting the idea of holding a ‘Gossip Mardi Gras’ where out and proud gossipers can get on with their gossiping without fear of censure.
As an aside from the serious debate that is going on with the main subject, I would suggest that such gossiping activities do have their daily ‘mardi gras’ in the pages of our tabloids and on TV ‘current affairs’ and radio talk-back shows. The ‘hollywood/entertainment’ segments in particular seem to revolve around nothing else but ‘gossip’ !
Wow
This one got going.
OK, guilty as charged, actually I wasn’t charged, but I do speak from personal experience a lot, mostly cos personal experience, at the end of the day is what really shapes most of our lives. And, to be frank, I get a lot of rather intense personal experiences with all sorts of fringe stuff and really do like to test the fringe elements against the “middle ground”. Also, I prefer to be “real”. Speaking out of a book, even the Bible isn’t really speaking for me and my opinion. The Bible may represent where my opinion and values are heading or should head, but it isn’t helpful IMO to opine what aint mine (yet).
Now, going to Gordo’s post at top of page. Your comparison against greed is a good one. I struggle against pride and both are spoken against in the Bible. Thing is, there isn’t much in the way of violence and vitriol spoken against the greedy or the proud for being that way (although the consequences of greed and prideful behaviour may attract retribution. Gays are attacked for being as they are. Now I suspect that this isn’t just the fault of religeon, but also lies at the feet of culture, but one feeds the other. I suspect it is because sexuality is a challenge to us all. As an example, I remember talking to an AoG pastor who I considered to be a decent man who was capable of challenging the limitations of his denomination without losing its essence. He did so in this way: he was counselling a gay man (I mean real counselling too BTW. That was his job and I believe he did it well). He did not do this to convert the man to being straight BTW. It was about not suiciding. (A very real problem in that group). When the session finished the gay man hugged his counsellor. The pastor told me he hesitated for a moment then he returned the hug. Now; the cool thing is he was able to do this. The cooler thing was that he stopped an impending suicide. But the thing that is worthy of note is that he hesitated. He did so because so many of us (me too I suspect- although I am not a hugger at the best of times) like him would be confronted with a raft of stuff like “I’m not gay!"..."I hope no one finds out.”..... “I hope he doesn’t get confused about this.” ... etc etc etc.
Pride and greed do not invoke this kind of response. And, I doubt that if examples could be found, that they would plug as deeply into the psyche as sexuality does. Most of us would not feel terribly bothered b saying something like “I’m a proud person.” or “I’m greedy.” or “I have a bad temper” or even “I am prone to lust.”
In fact in many circles such statements have kudos attached.
But many of us would cringe to admit we found someone of the same sex attractive. Homosexuality is a sin like any other- at one level. But at another it invokes a raft of cultural, religeous and who knows what else taboos. While this is true then it seems to me the other side of the case needs to be argued. While I and others have to deal with people who are worried lest someone find out they are gay or who have been badly treated in church or because they are ostracised by their own family then I believe the arguement needs a lot more compassion in it.
Not just civility (as another poster rightly suggested, but actual compassion.
DP; a response or two if I may. 1)
he other point about homosexuality is that it is a harmful lifestyle and a parasitic one when you consider that it is barren in terms of bringing children into the world.
Not a good example or reason. People who marry knowing they are infertile are not parasitic. The point is transferable. I know you didn’t mean it but it is logically and extension. Also, I don’t believe that such relationships can fairly be described as parasitic any how. Many are very generous and caring. I know of one gay couple where they decided to cohabit even though one was suffering the onset of MS! That took great courage and love. The sufferer is very advanced and the selflessness of the healthy partner is undeniable.
Also
I simply don’t believe there were, say 40 years ago, anything like the numbers of today involved in homosexual activity. Furthermore people are switching, the so called bisexual, which rather proves the point.
Hmmm. I doubt this is true. I understand that the percentages remains true across cultures no matter what stage of development (about 11%?) As for bisexuality, I rather thought I had made the point of sexuality being on a continuum.
You may make the point that God intends for one type of sexuality. But that says nothing about what, in our current state is normal (no matter how unobvious and hidden), it describes a direction, not status quo. I think that case is worth discussing. But I think recognising that the goal is unlikely to be reached this side of death is also worth realising.
Wow
This one got going.
OK, guilty as charged, actually I wasn’t charged, but I do speak from personal experience a lot, mostly cos personal experience, at the end of the day is what really shapes most of our lives.
Owen, if we let personal experience be the main factor in what we learn and who we are, we won’t learn much and we won’t get a clear picture of ourselves (or anyone else).
We have to look at our experiences through the eyes of Christ (ie scripture), or we won’t learn what we ought. The Bible is full of people who attended mainly to “personal experience” and failed to do what was needed of them - take Jacob as an example; it wasn’t until God dislocated his hip that he was ready to ask for what God wanted to give him.
Personal experience is mainly an inward, isolated place. The type of love we are called to is the opposite - open, unified, selfless.
Personal experience cannot give us the information we need to know about being God’s children unless we have the perspective of Scripture, and the wisdom of others - no matter how flawed that wisdom may be. Being a christian is meant to be a corporate, outwardly focused life.
Personal experience is what leads some to believe that that they are by nature homosexual, because it is taken without the perspective of others, and without the perspective of Christ.
No doubt you are right that once trapped into homosexuality, it is extraordinarily difficult to leave homosexuality.
I think the whole gene for homosexuality thing is unhelpful even though I have previously indicated that I do believe people can be born with a predilection for homosexuality. Many, many end up in homosexuality either because of upbringing or because of the out-workings of the sexual revolution of the 1960’s (which I lived through) including the influence of others and the consequent result of making a choice. I simply don’t believe there were, say 40 years ago, anything like the numbers of today involved in homosexual activity. Furthermore people are switching, the so called bisexual, which rather proves the point.
The assertion that “Many, many end up in homosexuality” because of their upbringing is flat out wrong. It was a popular idea for a while, but an idea that’s time has certainly come and gone. The idea that biology for the formation of sexuality is merely genetic is also wrong - another idea that’s time has come and gone.
None of this should mean that we can be excused civility toward homosexuality. Common grace extends to homosexuals. A mature Christian friend, until recently a member of English National Opera, tells of her many homosexual friends and how lovely a number are.
This is all well and good to say, but where does this civility start? Surely it must start with an acknowledgment about the true nature of the phenomenon.
The question I am interested in people’s thoughts on is this: where is the sin of homosexuality located? Or more to the point, where does the bible locate it, in the sense that the OT & NT writers would have understood it?
Is the sin of homosexuality, as the OT and NT writers would have understood it, located in the orientation? Is it in the located in the desire, the attraction? Is it located in close (non-sexual) relationships between two same-sex attracted people of the same gender? Or does the bible only locate it in gay sex?
Is the sin of homosexuality, as the OT and NT writers would have understood it, located in the orientation? Is it in the located in the desire, the attraction? Is it located in close (non-sexual) relationships between two same-sex attracted people of the same gender? Or does the bible only locate it in gay sex?
Even though I make the distinction myself between homosexual inclination and homosexual practice, I wonder if the Bible is particularly hung up on this issue in the way that I am.
I notice for example that in one of the most important passages about homosexuality, the distinction is noted but placed in its right context. So Rom 1:26a highlights the inclination
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions.
And then moves immediately to the way this works out in practice:
For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature
And you can see the same movement in the next verse, with men:
27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
I don’t believe that we are quite as obsessed with the distinction between motive and practice when it comes to adultery and murder; possibly because Jesus is so clear about these in Mt 5:32 and Mt 5:21-22 respectively.
So I don’t think that there is any dispute about the Bible’s condemnation of homosexual practice, but a close look will suggest that there is an underlying problem with the heart as well.
Owen, if we let personal experience be the main factor in what we learn and who we are, we won’t learn much and we won’t get a clear picture of ourselves (or anyone else).
Truth
You’re not going to get much of an arguement from me here. but what you will get if we play Bible only rules is an inevitable drfit to “kill em” or regard em as abomination”. That’s the Readers Digest version from the Bible.
it doesn’t match with my personal experience. For me, that needs resolving. In OT times they were to be put to death. In NT times they were to be shunned, and regarded as adulterers and sorcerers. Sorcerers and adulterers and I suspect gays were to be cured. But I haven’t seen this work. I haven’t seen anything in the way of credible therapy for them. I have however seen them been badly treated because they are supposed to be either sick or evil. So, until I find something useful from the Bible that will allow me to treat gays as I would anyone else, without the requirement to shun, kill or cure them, I shall veer to personal experience.
Unfortunately I have seen the arguements for treating gays with respect made from the Bible, but they haven’t held water against the plainer, more explicit anti-gay statements therein.
Any clues David?
Unfortunately I have seen the arguements for treating gays with respect made from the Bible, but they haven’t held water against the plainer, more explicit anti-gay statements therein.
Any clues David?
I’d personally start with Jesus, and how he treated homosexual people. Unfortunately to my knowledge he doesn’t come into contact with a homosexual that is recoded in the bible, but he does however come into contact with what was most likely seen as equivalents. Eg. Prostitutes and Samaritans (who a preacher I know once likened to as how we would view a ‘bisexual paedophile’).
Gordon - as long as we properly tackle both issues, I don’t have a problem, but do I think we need to be just as focused on the issues that are not in the public eye as on those that are. That is, our agenda should not be driven by the world’s.
Also, the reasons for an issue not being in the public eye may be that it is an issue that is even more ingrained in society (and therefore less visible) than homosexuality is. I doubt that we are serving God very well if we only tackle the (relatively) obvious stuff....
The opinions expressed in this forum belong to the individual posting the message and may not represent the view of the Sydney Diocese of the Anglican Church. Click here to read the Posting Policy.
Everyone is welcome on our forums, but please keep comments on-topic and civil. Any flaming or general nastiness will be deleted. No unsolicited advertising is allowed. All comments, suggestions, bug reports, etc. related to the forums should be directed to Robert Moller. Click here to read our complete Posting Policy.
Get the latest Sydney stories, Culture and Indepth on your mobile device. Visit sydang.mobi
